The whole point of a code of conduct is to promote good conduct and dissuade bad conduct. What's crazy about having moderators or having their moderation standards be the code of conduct?

Problem is selective enforcement. They have a member on their core team who has advocated violence in the past. It's just that it's violence against white people so it's "OK". They also have another person who is advocating violence against men. But again, their 'thought police' cops haven't done a thing.

I want to defend Rust project here. You should realize that Rust CoC is scoped to official Rust project space.

> They have a member on their core team who has advocated violence in the past. It's just that it's violence against white people so it's "OK".

As far as I know, the member you are referring to never advocated violence in the official Rust project space. That's enough for Rust.

This directly contradicts other CoC enforcement cases:

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

>publicly calling trans people out for "not accepting reality" on Twitter.

>His Twitter profile mentions that he is a core contributor to opal.

>Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project?

>Will any transgender developers feel comfortable contributing?

There is no reason to believe these people are impartial.

That's a different CoC though.

Is it?

https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/942

The author of the issue suggests the adoption of a certain Contributor Covenant. Here is the latest version of the text:

https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-con...

And here is the Node.js CoC:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nodejs/admin/master/CODE_O...

Here is the diff:

https://www.diffchecker.com/2Lj88IT6

The only substantial difference is located on the very first paragraph:

- education, socio-economic status

+ race

It is clearly the same CoC.

Nowhere in that text does it say that Twitter is some kind of private space where you can freely express unpopular opinions without consequences to your good standing as a contributor to software projects. The scope section actually says this:

>This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.

>Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

As evidenced by the Opal issue I cited, the mere mention of a project on your Twitter profile causes people to assume it is an "official social media account" and therefore subject to the CoC.

>His Twitter profile mentions that he is a core contributor to opal.

>Is this what the other maintainers want to be reflected in the project?

So why were there no consequences following this report?

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/324

The Twitter in question clearly is associated with Node.js:

https://twitter.com/ag_dubs

>@nodejs director. former @npmjs.

These facts were enough for me to form my opinion about CoCs and their enforcement.

Rust is not Node, so I'm not sure why you're looking at nodes CoC.

And you are sure that any code of conduct violations will not include anything out of the official Rust project space, like an unrelated twitter post?

Yes, I am 100% sure.

I mean, I understand that. HN usually weights controversial things down to focus on the tech aspects. It keeps the place fun to browse.

This is something I'm particularly interested in, so it's a little frustrating that it lasted all of 20 minutes on the front page. Ah well.

IMO, when a controversial issue such as a certain CoC change causes a top 5 contributor to such a large project such as LLVM to say "fuck it, I'm out," that is entirely relevant, and should be upvoted, not flagged to oblivion. You may not agree with the contributor's decision to leave, but it's worthwhile to try and understand why they came to that decision and to reflect on whether the change is the right thing to do or not. By down-voting or flagging into oblivion, dissent is being quieted, freedom of speech and thought is lost, and diversity of thought and inclusiveness in the community is actively being destroyed. We don't all have to agree, but when one group can actively suppress the participation of another, you've effectively killed free speech/thought.

The people that flag that sort of thing don't actually want diversity and inclusiveness, these are newspeak terms that mean the opposite.

If they actually wanted diversity then they would have to recognize that the majority of the world (and the diversity in it) has some very non-PC beliefs and their policies are excluding those people.

I always find these discussions weird, as a Christian who believes in the literal reality of hell. (I hope it will be empty, but I have no reason to believe that other than hope, and I must realistically admit that plenty of people appear to die in a state of mortal sin.)

Being respectful of others, even in a codified way, is in no way an affront to my non-PC beliefs. I'm not going to start having opinions about whether my co-maintainers are going to hell, and if you want to make a policy about that, I'm not harmed in the least. If you want to ask me about my beliefs you're always welcome to do so privately, but I have enough faith in the internet to believe that nobody I'm working on an open source project with is in dire need of hearing the Good News as if they haven't thought about it before. I'm not excluded by someone saying that proselytization is off-topic.

And if you think that my beliefs nonetheless make me a poor representative for some group of people who don't share those beliefs, well, I will be sad privately, but I don't think I am losing anything I deserved if you kick me out of a position of leadership or responsibility over it.

I will admit that there are people who share my beliefs who also have a belief in excluding a group of people in an arbitrary category or in being disrespectful of others as a matter of policy. I disagree (theologically!) with them, and I also very much have no interest in working closely with them on anything. If you craft a set of rules that excludes those people on the grounds of their exclusionary behavior, you'll likely find that I'm the most empathetic towards them when others want me to cut them off, but you'll also find that I have no fundamental objection towards those rules, implemented as a defense mechanism.

I think you're ignoring that witch hunting that has been going on in recent years. As a hypothetical, let's say that you believe all homosexuals will go to hell. Of course in a project or a workplace their will never be a need to bring this up and being respectful of others you never bring it up in those environments. But what about other environments? Should you be able to express your belief on your personal twitter? At your church?

The answer lately is that you aren't free to express that opinion anywhere, by doing so you could lose your job or be kicked out of a project. Being respectful to others will not save you, you have to keep your opinion completely to yourself.

Again, I totally do not feel that pressure. (And I tweet perhaps too much about my faith.)

I admit that certain people with public prominence might feel the pressure of public scrutiny, but I have never seen that pressure be aligned in any particular way, whether left vs. right, or religious vs. atheist, or "politically correct" vs. "politically incorrect," or whatever. Every US presidential candidate of every party felt this pressure. Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote about it yesterday (in an aside in his essay about Kanye West). I've seen /r/Catholicism accuse the actual Pope of virtue signaling. If I become a prominent person, I don't think there's anything about my particular beliefs that will make me more of a target of people looking for a reason to knock others down. Maybe they'll find what they're looking for more easily, but they'll look, regardless.

There are certain jobs I wouldn't be well-suited for. My denomination teaches that abortion should be legal, but should also be avoided. If you appointed me as a leader of a pro-legal-abortion group, I'd like to think I'd be honest to the people I represent and as effective as I can, but if you believed I'd be fundamentally compromised because my denomination isn't unequivocally pro-abortion and that there are better candidates, I'd say, yes, you can find better candidates. If I actually believe in the group's mission, I'd like to see the best person in the job, and if I don't, I certainly shouldn't have the job. I'm not qualified for all things, and part of the nature of having beliefs is that they influence your actions and worldview.

But that's about public prominence. The simple fact of the matter is that I feel completely welcome as a random contributor in projects with codes of conduct and among "SJWs," and I openly talk about my religion in casual conversations, and you are the one telling me that I should keep my opinions to myself.

> But that's about public prominence.

I don't think you realize how precarious your position is when we've had things like opalgate: https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 . This person wasn't president, wan't a celebrity, wasn't high profile at all, merely a contributor to an OSS project that had some non-PC views.

> The simple fact of the matter is that I feel completely welcome as a random contributor in projects with codes of conduct and among "SJWs,"

You will be welcome right up to the point where your not, when someone like Coroline takes an interest in your profile and gets you removed from a project. It's also been known to happen in workplaces, low level people with no public prominence being fired for not having social acceptable opinions.

None of this has anything to do with what's going on in this story.